Reading about opposition to multi-family housing reminds me of opposition to nuclear energy.
Regulations for both are substantially higher than those imposed on the conventional choice, making them more expensive in through self-fulfilling prophecies.
Additionally, having stopped working on them for 40 years means that the US is completely clueless about building them in an effective manner. Thus, the populace and even planners feel like the only choice is 50 year old infrastructure solutions. This also means that secondary ecosystems have developed with assumptions of the conventional choice, rendering the alternatives unable to take advantage of these secondary ecosystems.
Lastly, somehow arguments around both end up appearing far more ideological than scientific. Now, I am squarely on the nuclear/multi-family side of things, but it is particularly difficult to find consensus within the community on it.
Regulations for both are substantially higher than those imposed on the conventional choice, making them more expensive in through self-fulfilling prophecies.
Additionally, having stopped working on them for 40 years means that the US is completely clueless about building them in an effective manner. Thus, the populace and even planners feel like the only choice is 50 year old infrastructure solutions. This also means that secondary ecosystems have developed with assumptions of the conventional choice, rendering the alternatives unable to take advantage of these secondary ecosystems.
Lastly, somehow arguments around both end up appearing far more ideological than scientific. Now, I am squarely on the nuclear/multi-family side of things, but it is particularly difficult to find consensus within the community on it.